Fascinating. Thanks Mike!
Ed
>>From the late Arne Raeithel, a genaeology.
>mike
>
>On 12/3/06, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks Andy. This is rather nice: Vygotsky > Lenin > Hegel > Kant
>>
>>
>>On 12/3/06 5:56 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's Lenin's famous comment on Hegel and abstract/concrete (Volume 38
>>in
>>> my edition):
>>> http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm
>>> I'll respond to your post when I've a bit more time to think, ... this
>>evening
>>> Andy
>>> At 05:30 PM 3/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>> I would very much like to get clearer on Vygotsky's use of both Hegel
>>and
>>>> Lenin. Perhaps you can help me?
>>>>
>>>> For example, in Pedology of the Adolescent (around 1931) V wrote on
>>concept
>>>> development, and in particular on counting and the number concept. It
>>seems
>>>> to me he oscillates between a simple view in which the concrete is
>>primitive
>>>> and the abstract is advanced, and a very different view in which
>>seemingly
>>>> abstract concepts are actually a reorganization of the relationship
>>between
>>>> concrete and abstract: "a completely new form of relation between
>>abstract
>>>> and concrete factors in thinking arises, a new form of their merging
>>and
>>>> synthesis" (p. 39). The latter strikes me as distinctly Hegelian. The
>>former
>>>> seems to come up when Vygotsky refers to Hegel. But my reading must be
>>too
>>>> naive, because on page 79 we find V citing Lenin citing Hegel!
>>>>
>>>> First on concepts: The young child's perception of number "is based on
>>>> number images, on concrete perception of form and size of a given
>>number of
>>>> objects. With [the] transition to thinking in concepts, the child is
>>>> liberated from purely concrete numerical thinking. In place of a number
>>>> image, a number concept appears. If we compare the concept of number
>>with a
>>>> number image, at first glance it may seem to justify [the] premises of
>>>> formal logic relative to the extreme poverty in content of the concept
>>in
>>>> comparison with the riches of the concrete content contained in the
>>image"
>>>> (vol 5, 78)
>>>>
>>>> But Vygotsky immediately continues: "Actually, this is not so. The
>>concept
>>>> not only excludes from its content a number of points proper to the
>>concrete
>>>> perception, but for the first time, it also discloses in the concrete
>>>> perception a number of such points that are completely inaccessible to
>>>> direct perception or contemplation, points that are introduced by
>>thinking
>>>> and are identified through processing the data of experience and
>>synthesized
>>>> into a single whole with elements of direct perception.
>>>>
>>>> "Thus all number concepts, for example, the concept "7," are included
>>in a
>>>> complex number system, occupy a certain place in it, and when this
>>concept
>>>> is found and processed, then all the complex connections and relations
>>that
>>>> exist between this concept and the rest of the system of concepts in
>>which
>>>> it is included are given. The concept not only reflects reality, but
>>also
>>>> systematizes it, includes data of concrete perception into a complex
>>system
>>>> of connections and relations, and discloses the connections and
>>relations
>>>> that are inaccessible to simple comprehension. For this reason many
>>>> properties of size become clear and perceptible only when we begin to
>>think
>>>> of them in concepts" (78-79)
>>>>
>>>> This is all rather nice. But then, surprisingly, comes a footnote
>>quoting
>>>> Lenin on Hegel!
>>>>
>>>> Lenin: "In opposition to Kant, Hegel was essentially completely
>>correct.
>>>> Thinking going from the concrete to the abstract does not deviate if
>>it is
>>>> correct from truth, but approaches it. The abstraction of material, a
>>laaw
>>>> of nature, abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all scientific
>>(correct,
>>>> serious, not foolish) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, more
>>>> reliably, more fully. From a living contemplation to abstract thinking
>>and
>>>> from it to practice such is the dialectical path of recognizing
>>truth,
>>>> recognizing objective reality" (Complete Works, Vol. 29, pp. 152-153).
>>[Vol.
>>>> 29 is March Aug 1919]
>>>> So here, apparently, are Vygotsky, Hegel and Lenin all agreeing that
>>>> reflection is an active way of thinking which gets beyond appearances
>>to
>>>> essences, systematizes concrete detail, grasps complex
>>interconnections,
>>>> recognizes objective reality, achieves truth, and guides practice!
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to find this excerpt from Lenin on marxists.org, but without
>>>> success.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/3/06 4:58 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, Paul. I guess I would ask you to give me page references
>>to
>>>>> justify this observation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Lenin of the 1914/15 Notebooks certainly reads as a very different
>>>>> character from the Lenin of the 1908 ME&C, but I am sure that if Lenin
>>had
>>>>> anywhere in those Notebooks made any kind of self-criticism of his
>>1908
>>>>> position I would have noticed it. The same Trotskyist group which
>>spent
>>>>> countless hours bashing M&EC into my head spent even more hours
>>bashing
>>>>> "Volume 38" into my head, and it was this experience which prompted me
>>to
>>>>> make my own study of Hegel.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to Ilyenkov, yes, Ilyenkov has been my guiding light to get out of
>>the
>>>>> dogmatism of M&EC. The problem is that while A&C and the Essays are at
>>odds
>>>>> with M&EC, Ilyenkov chooses to back Lenin to the hilt when he writes a
>>book
>>>>> about M&EC. As I said, there is nothing actually incorrect in M&EC; it
>>>>> just, IMO, makes the wrong call in terms of emphasis and what is
>>said/not
>>>>> said. I am not aware that anywhere Ilyenkov said something like "M&EC
>>was a
>>>>> bad book".
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> At 06:07 AM 3/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it the case that Lenin rejected his early position of M&EC in
>>the
>>>>>> Philosophic Notebooks and his study of Hegel's logic? Also, isn't
>>>>>> Ilyenkov's position in 'From the Abstract to the Concrete' also at
>>odds
>>>>>> with the position in M&EC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Can I see if I can say what I think Mike means by the "Russian"
>>>> meaning of
>>>>>> "reflection"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was introduced both to Lenin and Vygotsky through a British
>>Trotskyist
>>>>>> group in the early 1980s, and this involved intensive study of
>>Lenin's
>>>>>> "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". This book was regarded in that
>>>> quarter
>>>>>> as more or less the last word in philosophy. Ilyenkov's book on
>>>> Positivism,
>>>>>> was published in English by the same group, and is a full-on defence
>>of
>>>>>> this book of Lenin's. In M&EC, Lenin uses "reflection" to mean a
>>universal
>>>>>> property of matter, more or less the propensity of any material thing
>>to
>>>>>> retain impressions of another material thing with which it has
>>interacted.
>>>>>> So this view of cognition as something utterly divorced from
>>>>>> self-consciousness or even living organisms, let alone human beings,
>>but
>>>>>> rather as a universal property of matter, was encoded in the meaning
>>>>>> attached by Lenin to the word "reflection."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, my experiences in British Trotskyism may have been paralleled by
>>the
>>>>>> experience of others in Russian Stalinism, I don't know. But much as
>>I
>>>> love
>>>>>> Ilyenkov, it has always been hard for me to understand his enthusiasm
>>for
>>>>>> M&EC. The political effect of ME&C as I received it was very
>>>>>> retrograde. In the same book, Lenin blasts all forms of semiotics, by
>>the
>>>>>> way. There was a definite and valid purpose for Lenin's book when it
>>was
>>>>>> written in 1908, and he doesn't say anything in the whole several
>>hundred
>>>>>> pages which is actually wrong, but the drift of the polemic is
>>>> crushing. In
>>>>>> arguing against subjectivist epistemology, it encourages an
>>absolutely
>>>>>> devastatingly objectivist view of the human condition in general and
>>>>>> cognition in particular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I find the notion of "reflection" an extremely *passive*
>>>>>> rendering of the process of knowledge and life. The idea emphasises
>>the
>>>>>> dominant place of the object in a true subjective image, and the
>>>>>> indifference of the image to the internal structure of the subject,
>>but I
>>>>>> have never found that it convinced anyone that didn't already
>>understand
>>>>>> these issues. The likening of human society to inorganic natural
>>processes
>>>>>> is not a point which needs to be made today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what you meant Mike?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 10:59 PM 2/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>>> Agreed!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The version of 'The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology'
>>>> that I
>>>>>>> have to hand is in 'The Esssential Vygostky' (2004, R. W. Rieber &
>>D. K.
>>>>>>> Robinson, eds. Kluger). It's a compilation of the 'best' of the 6
>>vol
>>>>>>> Collected Works. The mirror example is on page 327.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding reflection, which is another concept I'm puzzled by (what
>>>> is the
>>>>>>> Russian manner, Mike?), I'd forgotten that this paragraph begins:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Let us compare consciousness, as is often done, with a mirror
>>>> image..." At
>>>>>>> the end of the paragraph I still can't tell whether V is suggesting
>>>> it's a
>>>>>>> good comparison or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and 3 pages earlier (p. 324) when he cites Lenin (1975, p. 260)
>>>> along the
>>>>>>> lines that I've mentioned, here again the work reflection is used:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the only 'property' of matter connected with philosophical
>>>> materialism is
>>>>>>> the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of
>>our
>>>>>>> consciousness.... Epistemologically the concept of matter means
>>NOTHING
>>>>>>> other than objective reality, existing independently from human
>>>>>>> consciousness and reflected by it" (original emphasis).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't find the references from the Crisis anywhere in this book,
>>but I
>>>>>>> have the Spanish translation now too, and the citation there is to
>>>> Lenin's
>>>>>>> Collected Works, vol 19, p. 275. In Spanish the word 'reflected' is
>>>>>>> translated as 'reflejada' and 'mirror image' as 'reflejo.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/2/06 10:40 PM, "Mike Cole" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing sceptical, Martin. There are many imponderables here from
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> sources. Trying to think with you.
>>>>>>> I would be greatly assisted, and I
>>>>>>>> assume I am not alone in this, if
>>>>>>> discussants would provide page numbers
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> references so that those not "in the know" could pin down sources
>>and
>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>> better triangulate on what the focus
>>>>>>> of discussion is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not versed
>>>>>>>> in Spinoza. I am barely versed in parts of Vygotsky. So when
>>>>>>> arcaine
>>>>>>>> references and partial information
>>>>>>> are floated out on xmca as if everyone were
>>>>>>>> an insider, when we are all
>>>>>>> border liners, it confuses me.
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/2/06,
>>>>>>>> Martin Packer
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike, this sounds to me like a
>>>>>>>> skeptical Hmmmm. What strikes you as
>>>>>>>> dubious?
>>>>>>>> I'm happy to be
>>>>>>>> mediated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/06 6:03 PM, "Mike Cole"
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmmm indeed.
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/06,
>>>>>>>> Martin Packer
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Natalia, thanks very much.
>>>>>>>> The cyrillic didn't come through, but I can
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> piece
>>>>>>>>> together the
>>>>>>>> English:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "after all a cornerstone of materialism is a
>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>> about (that)
>>>>>>>>> consciousness and the brain are, both, a product
>>>>>>>>> (of
>>>>>>>> nature), (and) a part
>>>>>>>>> of nature, (the one) that reflects the rest of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nature"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Might you be able to take a look at the other two excerpts in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> Russian?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me think about this 'out loud' a
>>>>>>>> little. This is
>>>>>>>>> the point in Crisis
>>>>>>>>> where Vygotsky is specifying what
>>>>>>>> a truly Marxist
>>>>>>>>> psychology, a 'general'
>>>>>>>>> psychology, must study. A
>>>>>>>> science, he insists,
>>>>>>>>> studies not appearances but
>>>>>>>>> what really exists.
>>>>>>>> Optics, for example, studies
>> >>>>>>> mirror surfaces and light
>>>>>>>>> rays, not the
>>>>>>>> images we see in the mirror, for the
>>>>>>>>> latter are phantoms. A
>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>> psychology must study the real processes
>>>>>>>>> that can give rise to
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> appearances, not (just) the appearances. [It's
>>>>>>>>> not clear to me how
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> to go with this seeming analogy between the way a
>>>>>>>>> mirror reflects
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> way the brain/Cs 'reflects the rest of nature'.] So
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> descriptive,
>>>>>>>>> intuitionist phenomenology must be rejected. What really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> exists? A
>>>>>>>>> materialist maintains that the brain exists, and consciousness
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> too. V
>>>>>>>>> cites
>>>>>>>>> Lenin to the effect that what is matter, what is
>>>>>>>> objective,
>>>>>>>>> is what exists
>>>>>>>>> independently of human consciousness. And,
>>>>>>>> seemingly
>>>>>>>>> paradoxically,
>>>>>>>>> consciousness can exist outside our
>>>>>>>> consciousness: for we can
>>>>>>>>> be conscious
>>>>>>>>> without being self-conscious. I
>>>>>>>> can see without knowing that I
>>>>>>>>> see. So a
>>>>>>>>> general psychology must study
>>>>>>>> consciousness, but to know the mind
>>>>>>>>> we can't
>>>>>>>>> rely on introspection, in
>>>>>>>> part because in introspection mind splits
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> subject and object: a
>>>>>>>> dualism arises in the act of self-reflection.
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> establish a
>>>>>>>> psychological science only on the basis of what we
>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>> (as Husserl tried to do); it must be based on knowledge,
>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> result of analysis, not merely of experience. And what is
>>>>>>>>> analysis?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Complicated answer put briefly: analysis lies at the intersection
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> methodology and practice: it is the exhaustive study of a single
>>case
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> its connections, taken as a social microcosm. It involves what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>>>> (following Hegel) called abstraction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll confess I'm still
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> clear what V is proposing as the solutions to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> epistemological and
>>>>>>>>> ontological problems that he has distinguished. It
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>> to me as though
>>>>>>>>> he is saying that the epistemological problem -
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> concerning the relation
>>>>>>>>> between subject and object - arises only
>>>>>>>> when one
>>>>>>>>> accepts uncritically the
>>>>>>>>> dualism that arises in introspection
>>>>>>>> (or 'blind
>>>>>>>>> empiricism'?). So once one
>>>>>>>>> rejects introspection this
>>>>>>>> problem dissolves.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> implication is that if
>>>>>>>>> one begins not with
>>>>>>>> introspection but with
>>>>>>>>> practice,
>>>>>>>>> one avoids any
>>>>>>>>> subject-object
>>>>>>>> dualism. The ontological problem -
>>>>>>>>> concerning
>>>>>>>>> the relation
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> mind and matter - is what he's trying to study, no?
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> brain-in-a-body-in-a-social-world the basis for consciousness, then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> self-consciousness, then self-mastery and knowledge?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>> I found it --- in Russian, vol.1 of
>>>>>>>> "Sobranie Sochinenii", on
>>>>>>>>> page 416.
>>>>>>>>>> It reads in Russian as very
>>>>>>>> similar to the English quote your
>>>>>>>>> posted
>>>>>>>>> above:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "ß ß¥ßßϤ --
>>>>>>>> after all-- ߪâ*ºß ߥß⤦ߣß(r)ß«ßϤ߭߻߬
>>>> ßªß ß¬ß­ß¥ß¬ ߬ß
>>>>>> ßߥâ*ºß¨ß
>>>>>>> ߫ߨߧ߬ß
>>>>>>>>> -- a corneestone
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> materialism -- ߿ߢ߫߿ߥß߱߿
>>>> ߯ß(r)ß«ß(r)ßߥ߭ߨߥ ß(r) ßß(r)߬, -- is a
>>>>>>>>> proposition about, ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ß·ßß(r)
>>>>>>>>>> ß±ß(r)ß§ß­ß ß­ß¨ß¥ ߨ ߬ß(r)ߧߣ
>>>> ߥ߱ßßϤ ߯â*ºß(r)ßß⤦ßªß ---
>>>> -
>>>>>> (that)
>>>>>>>>> consciousness and the
>>>>>>>> brain are,
>> >>>>>>>> both, a product (of nature),--- ß·ß ß±ßßϤ
>>>>>>>>> ߯â*ºß¨â*ºß(r)ßß», ---(and) a
>>>> ) a
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>> nature, --
>>>>>>>>>> ß(r)ßâ*ºß ßß ï¬ ß⤁ß ï¬ ß¶ß ß¿
>>>> ß(r)ß±±ßß ß«ßϤß­ß⤦ï¬
>>>>>> ߯â*ºß¨â*ºß(r)ßß⤦
>>>> ⤦
>>>>>>>>> -- (the one)
>>>>>>>> that reflects the rest of
>>>>>>>>>> nature"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or something like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hope this is helpful, and not making things more
>>>>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Natalia.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/06 2:47
>>>>>>>> PM, "Natalia Gajdamaschko"
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:55:29 -0500
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A few pages later:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ""After all,
>>>>>>>>> a cornerstone of
>>>>>>>> materialism is the proposition that
>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and
>>>>>>>>> the brain are
>>>>>>>> a product, a part of nature, which
>>>>>>>>> reflect
>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of
>>>>>>>>> nature"
>>>>>>>> (327).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The last sentence is not grammatical English, so
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> something has clearly
>>>>>>>>>> gone
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the translation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> anyone has access to the original Russian and could comment,that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> great. (Page numbers are from the version in The
>>>>>>>> Essential
>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing
>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>AIM
>>>>>> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>>> Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>AIM
>>>>> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>AIM
>>> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Arne Genealogy.jpg"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Arne Genealogy.jpg"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_eva8x0tg
>
>Attachment converted: OS X:Arne Genealogy.jpg (JPEG/IC) (00142E14)
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:17 PST